start_pipeline_run

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states "Start" and the params format, without mentioning whether this creates a cluster resource, whether it waits for completion, required permissions, or failure behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two compact sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the parameter syntax note earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema parameter coverage, this is too thin. It omits prerequisites such as the target pipeline needing to exist, how cluster and namespace are used, and behavioral effects; the output schema covers return values but not invocation guidance.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully clarifies that params is a comma-separated KEY=VALUE list, but it does not explain pipeline_name, cluster, or namespace beyond what their names and defaults in the schema already imply.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Start" is a specific action verb and "Tekton PipelineRun" is a specific resource, so the core purpose is immediately clear. The active verb also distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_pipeline_runs, get_pipeline_run, and cancel_pipeline_run.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description says what the tool does but gives no conditions, prerequisites, or explicit guidance about when to choose it over alternatives. The only operational hint is the params formatting, which is not usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.